DETAILS OF PROCEEDINGS

The following significant developments in this landmark climate lawsuit are described in reverse chronological order. Read full press releases regarding these developments here.

January 13, 2019

Youth Plaintiffs Suing the Government For Climate Change Will Testify Against Proposed Liquid Natural Gas Project in Oregon

Jacob Lebel, one of the 21 youth plaintiffs suing the United States government for causing climate change in the landmark constitutional case, Juliana v. U.S., will speak at a rally outside of an Oregon Department of State Lands public hearing for critical permits for the Jordan Cove Energy Project. He will be joined in his testimony by a wide range of grassroots voices opposed to the pipeline and export terminal. This will be the last of five hearings held throughout the state. The Jordan Cove Energy Project is a specific fossil fuel project named in the lawsuit.

January 7, 2019

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Grants Youth Plaintiffs’ Request to Expedite the Government’s Appeal in the Landmark Climate Lawsuit Juliana v. United States

A three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs’ request to expedite the briefing schedule in Juliana v. United States, the landmark constitutional climate lawsuit brought by 21 young Americans. The Ninth Circuit agreed to fast-track the appeal.

DECEMBER 27, 2018

In a 2-1 Decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Grants Interlocutory Appeal in Juliana v. United States and in a Unanimous Decision Denies Mandamus

In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted defendants’ petition for permission to bring an interlocutory appeal in Juliana v. United States, the landmark constitutional climate lawsuit brought by young Americans. Chief Judge Sidney Thomas and Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon decided in favor of the petition, while Circuit Judge Michelle Friedland wrote a dissent. This three-judge panel is the same panel that ruled against the Trump administration’s petition for writ of mandamus in this case on March 7, 2018. The Court’s decision comes just over a month after District Court Judge Ann Aiken certified the case for interlocutory appeal on November 21, 2018.

DECEMBER 20, 2018

Youth Plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States Ask Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to Lift Stay of Trial

Attorneys filed an emergency motion with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The motion asks the Ninth Circuit to lift the stay imposed by its order of November 8, 2018 and allow the case to proceed to trial.

DECEMBER 11, 2018

Juliana v. United States Plaintiffs’ Express Urgency and Efficiency in Requesting the Ninth Circuit Allowing Climate Case to Go to Trial

Attorneys filed their answer in opposition to the fifth petition of the Trump administration to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In their Fifth Petition, Defendants seek permission for an early appeal before trial. Plaintiffs’ answering brief cautions that granting the U.S. government’s petition and endorsing its delay tactics will contribute to a “miscarriage of justice.”

DECEMBER 5, 2018

Youth Plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States Ask District Court to Lift stay on Pretrial Proceedings

Attorneys filed a motion for reconsideration with the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The motion asks Judge Aiken to reconsider her November 21 decision to place a stay on pretrial proceedings when she certified the case for interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

NOVEMBER 21, 2018

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to decide Whether Juliana vs. United States Goes to trial

U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken issued an order certifying Juliana v. United States for interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In staying the case pending a decision by the Ninth Circuit, Judge Aiken maintained that the landmark constitutional climate lawsuit brought in 2015 by 21 young Americans would be better situated for appeal after trial, not before. In stating she did not “make this decision lightly,” Judge Aiken repeatedly emphasized that she stood by her prior rulings and believed the case should go to trial.

NOVEMBER 8, 2018

When Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Lifts Temporary Stay, U.S. District Court Will Be Ready to Quickly Issue New Trial Date

During a status conference between U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken and the parties in Juliana v. United States, Judge Aiken indicated she would promptly issue a trial date once the Ninth Circuit lifts the temporary stay it placed on trial

Trial on Hold for Juliana v. United States as Ninth Circuit Reviews the Government’s Mandamus Petition, But Discovery and Pre-Trial Preparations Can Continue

A panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted, in part, the Trump administration’s motion for a temporary stay of District Court proceedings

NOVEMBER 5, 2018

Trump Administration Continues to Make its Fear of Juliana v. United States Known

The Department of Justice filed a motion for stay with the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon and hours later filed an application for stay and another petition for a writ of mandamus with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

NOVEMER 2, 2018

United States Supreme Court Denies Trump Administration’s Request for Stay - Juliana v. United States Moves Forward, Again

The United States Supreme Court denied the Trump administration’s application for stay in the landmark constitutional climate lawsuit, Juliana v. United States.

OCTOBER 22, 2018

Youth Plaintiffs File Response with Supreme Court Pointing to the Government’s Serious Mischaracterization of Juliana v. United States

Attorneys for youth plaintiffs in the landmark climate lawsuit, Juliana v. United States, filed their response with the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, requesting that the Court allow their trial to proceed on October 29 and pointing to numerous mischaracterizations of the lawsuit by the Trump administration in its recent filing with the Court.

OCTOBER 18, 2018

United States Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Stop Children’s Constitutional Case on the Eve of Trial

For the second time in three months, the Department of Justice asked the United States Supreme Court to circumvent the ordinary procedures of federal litigation and stop the constitutional case Juliana v. United States, involving the substantive due process and equal protection rights of children, from going to trial. Claiming harm from the costs of litigation, the federal government filed a second writ of mandamus petition and application for stay with the Supreme Court.

OCTOBER 15, 2018

District Court Makes Sweeping Ruling in Juliana v. United States

U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken ruled on the Trump administration’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (“MJP”) and motion for summary judgment (“MSJ”) in the landmark constitutional climate lawsuit Juliana v. United States, filed by 21 young Americans and supported by Our Children’s Trust. Judge Aiken’s decision, in large part, denied the motions brought by the Trump administration, but granted the motions in part by limiting the scope of the plaintiffs’ claims and dismissing the President from the case. As a result, the case will proceed to trial in exactly two weeks on October 29, 2018.

OCTOBER 12, 2018

Trump Administration Attempts to Delay Juliana v. United States Trial by Pleading with the Ninth Circuit for the Third Time

The Trump administration filed a third writ of mandamus petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the constitutional climate lawsuit Juliana v. United States. The administration is seeking an unprecedented and extraordinarily rare third request that the Court issue a writ of mandamus to stay district court proceedings pending the resolution of the administration’s forthcoming petition to the United States Supreme Court. The Department of Justice plans to file a second writ of mandamus petition with the Supreme Court on Wednesday, October 17.

OCTOBER 5, 2018

In an unprecedented move, the Trump administration filed another motion with the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon to stay discovery and trial in the landmark constitutional climate lawsuit Juliana v. United States, pending review from the U.S. Supreme Court.

JULY 30, 2018

U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Youth Plaintiffs, Allows Juliana v. United States to Proceed to Trial

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the 21 youth plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States, the constitutional climate lawsuit filed against the federal government. The Court denied the Trump administration’s application for stay, preserving the U.S. District Court’s trial start date of October 29, 2018. The Court also denied the government’s “premature” request to review the case before the district court hears all of the facts that support the youth’s claims at trial.

JULY 20, 2018

Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Youth Plaintiffs Again, Denies the Trump Administration’s Second Petition for Writ of Mandamus

In a per curiam opinion, Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas, and Circuit Judges Marsha Berzon and Michelle Friedland of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s second petition for writ of mandamus in the constitutional climate lawsuit, Juliana v. United States, brought by 21 youth supported by Our Children’s Trust.

JULY 18, 2018

YOUTH SEEK TO PROTECT THEIR LIBERTY FROM FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY SYSTEM

U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken heard oral argument in the constitutional climate lawsuit Juliana v. United States. Judge Aiken considered the Trump administration’s latest procedural tactics to avoid trial: a motion for judgment on the pleadings (“MJP”) and a motion for summary judgment (“MSJ”). Supporters for the youth plaintiffs packed the Wayne Morse Federal Courthouse courtroom in Eugene and three overflow rooms.

MAY 25, 2018

U.S. District Court Denies the Trump Administration’s Motion for Protective Order in Juliana v. United States

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Coffin issued an order denying the Trump Administration’s motion for protective order and a stay of all discovery in Juliana v. United States, the constitutional climate lawsuit brought by 21 young plaintiffs. The Administration sought the protective order to avoid all discovery in the case and further delay trial.

MAY 23, 2018

U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken presided over a telephonic hearing to discuss the most recent motion the Trump Administration has filed in Juliana v. United States, the constitutional climate lawsuit brought by 21 young plaintiffs and supported by Our Children’s Trust. The motion renews the Administration’s objections that the Court should not allow plaintiffs to proceed to trial and seeks dismissal of the President from the case.

APRIL 12, 2018

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES CLIMATE TRIAL SET FOR OCTOBER 29, 2018

During a public case management conference today, U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin set October 29, 2018 as the trial date for Juliana v. United States, the constitutional climate lawsuit brought by 21 young people and supported by Our Children’s Trust. The trial will be heard before U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken in Eugene, Oregon.

MARCH 7, 2018

Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s “drastic and extraordinary” petition for writ of mandamus in the landmark climate lawsuit, Juliana v. United States, brought by 21 youth supported by Our Children’s Trust. The Court ruled that the Juliana case can proceed toward trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon and that the Trump administration had not satisfied the factors necessary for an extraordinary writ of mandamus. The three-judge panel consisted of Chief Judge Sidney Thomas, and Circuit Judges Marsha Berzon and Michelle Friedland. Judge Friedland replaced Alex Kozinski on the panel after he resigned on December 18, 2017, one week after oral argument was held on the petition.

DECEMBER 11, 2017

This morning, Juli lso, executive director of Our Children’s Trust and co-lead counsel, argued on behalf of 21 Juliana v. United States youth plaintiffs before a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The primary issue was whether President Trump and his administration can evade a constitutional climate change trial.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eri ran argued, on behalf of the Trump administration and the U.S. government defendants, that the youths’ climate change lawsuit should not be permitted to proceed to trial. In fact, in his arguments, Mr. Grant complained three times that, if Juliana v. United States was allowed to proceed to trial, it would be the “trial of century.”

Watch the video recording here:

NOVEMBER 16, 2017

NINTH CIRCUIT TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT IN JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

There has been a significant development in the constitutional climate change lawsuit so far successfully prosecuted by 21 youth plaintiffs: the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to hear oral argument over whether the Trump Administration can evade trial currently set for February 5, 2018. Oral arguments will be heard before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on December 11, 2017. Arguments will begin at 10 am PST at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals located at 95 7th St, San Francisco, CA. A press conference will follow oral argument.

SEPTEMBER 12, 2017

The next phase in Juliana v. U.S., the landmark climate lawsuit brought by 21 youth plaintiffs, now rests with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On Monday, September 11, the Trump Administration filed its reply brief to the youth plaintiffs’ answer to Trump’s latest trial delay tactic - a mandamus petition filed on June 9th.

In its reply, the Trump Administration backed away from its claims of “an unbounded discovery process.” The Administration’s original petition asserted “ongoing discovery” presented a “staggering burden” “directed at the entire course of federal decision-making.” In its reply brief, however, the Administration’s gripes were turned into whimpers, now complaining the youth plaintiffs “are not entitled to any discovery to support an unfounded constitutional claim.” When the case moves forward, the federal defendants will have to respond to the same type of pre-trial disclosures of information as any other party to litigation.

SEPTEMBER 5, 2017

Powerful voices of support for Juliana v. United States youth plaintiffs in their landmark climate case filed amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs in opposition to the Trump Administration’s mandamus petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In all, eight amicus briefs, from legal scholars, religious, women’s, libertarian, and environmental groups, alongside legal nonprofits, displayed resounding legal support for denying the mandamus petition, and allowing the Juliana v. U.S. case to proceed to trial on February 5, 2018.

AUGUST 28, 2017

PLAINTIFFS IN JULIANA V. US ANSWER TRUMP’S MANDAMUS PETITION

Today, attorneys representing 21 youth plaintiffs in the landmark climate case Juliana v. United States filed an answer to the Trump Administration’s mandamus petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In their answer, attorneys make clear that the U.S. government already admitted that its actions imperil youth plaintiffs with “dangerous, and unacceptable economic, social, and environmental risks,” and that “the use of fossil fuels is a major source of [greenhouse gas] emissions, placing our nation on an increasingly costly, insecure, and environmentally dangerous path.”

JULY 28, 2017

Today, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered attorneys representing the 21 Juliana v. United States youth plaintiffs to file an answer to the Trump Administration’s petition for a writ of mandamus.

The Trump administration’s petition seeks review of a November 10, 2016 decision by U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken to deny the government’s motion to dismiss Juliana. The Ninth Circuit is allowing plaintiffs 30 days to respond to the Trump administration’s petition for writ of mandamus, a rare and extraordinary remedy granted in only the most unusual circumstances. The Ninth Circuit has requested that the briefing on behalf of the youth plaintiffs address pre-trial discovery issues raised by the U.S. government defendants and has invited Judge Aiken to file an answer as well

JULY 25, 2017

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ORDERS TEMPORARY STAY

Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a temporary stay on the district court proceedings in Juliana v. United States. The order was issued by circuit judges Alfred Goodwin, Alex Kozinski, and Marsha Berzon.

On June 9, the Trump Administration filed a petition for an extraordinarily rare review of a November 10, 2016 decision by U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken denying its motion to dismiss Juliana v. United States. The Trump Administration also sought a “stay of proceedings in the district court,” pending resolution of its rare petition by the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit stated in today’s order that the “petition for writ of mandamus and all other pending motions will be addressed by separate order.”

JUNE 28, 2017

JULIANA V. US CLIMATE TRIAL SET FOR FEBRUARY 5, 2018

Today, U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin issued an order in the climate lawsuit brought by 21 youth, Juliana v. United States, setting a trial date for February 5, 2018 before U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken in Eugene, Oregon.

JUNE 14, 2017

In a case management conference today, the Trump Administration pushed back against a proposed December 4, 2017 trial date in the youth climate case, Juliana v. United States.

Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin adopted most of the discovery deadlines and a timeline to trial proposed by attorneys for youth plaintiffs, with one major exception. The US government defendants, represented by the Department of Justice, pushed back on a trial date for December 4th. Judge Coffin is requiring plaintiffs and defendants to each submit a “trial memorandum” by that date, outlining what issues the parties will present at trial. Judge Coffin told the parties, “this court is committed to trying to expedite this given the urgency of the issues presented…”

JUNE 9, 2017

Today the Trump Administration filed a writ of mandamus petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking an extraordinarily rare review of a November 10, 2016 decision by U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken to deny its motion to dismiss Juliana v. United States. Further, the Trump Administration is seeking “a stay of proceedings in the district court” while the Ninth Circuit considers its petition.

The Trump Administration argues the Ninth Circuit should “exercise its supervisory mandamus powers to end this clearly improper attempt to have the judiciary decide important questions of energy and environmental policy to the exclusion of the elected branches of government.”

The U.S. Constitution provides for three separate but equal branches of government, with no exception for energy and environmental policy.

JUNE 8, 2017

On Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken issued an order denying motions filed by the Trump Administration and the fossil fuel industry that sought to appeal her November 10, 2016 order in Juliana v. United States to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The order follows the Trump Administration’s remarkable Tuesday night filing of a notice giving Judge Aiken a deadline of June 9, 2017 to issue her order. In that notice, the Department of Justice threatened, “In the absence of such resolution by this Court, the United States will seek … review and relief in the Court of Appeals.” The Trump Administration is alluding to an intention to seek a writ of mandamus, an extraordinary remedy that is rarely granted, from the higher court.

May 25, 2017

API SEEKS TO DEPART AS DEFENDANT IN CLIMATE LAWSUIT

In an unusual procedural move, especially after numerous legal efforts trying to get a federal court in Oregon to throw out a climate lawsuit, Juliana v. US, brought by 21 young people, the American Petroleum Institute (“API”) filed a motion Thursday night requesting the court’s permission to withdraw from the litigation. The association is following the lead of the National Association of Manufacturers (“NAM”), who filed a similar motion to withdraw on Monday, May 22.

It remains unclear whether the third trade association defendant in the case, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (“AFPM”), intends to follow NAM and API’s lead and retreat, or continue in the case as a party. For any defendant to leave the litigation, U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin must grant permission.

May 22, 2017

National Association of Manufacturers Seeks to Remove Itself as a Defendant

After numerous legal efforts trying to get a federal district court in Oregon to throw out a climate lawsuit brought by 21 young people, a defeated National Association of Manufacturers (“NAM”) filed a motion today requesting the court’s permission to withdraw from the litigation. NAM “moves to withdraw as an intervenor –defendant from this case.” Based on its pleadings in court, “NAM is the nation’s largest industrial trade association representing the manufacturing sector of the United States economy.”

Julia Olson, counsel for Plaintiffs and Executive Director of Our Children’s Trust, responded: “Over 18 months ago, NAM, like the other fossil fuel intervenors, went to great lengths to become a party defendant in this case. They claimed their members were seriously threatened by our case. Now, faced with significant legal victories by these young plaintiffs, and on the eve of having to take a position on climate science, NAM wants out of this case. We believe the court will determine that there should be consequences for wasting the court’s time.”

May 8, 2017

Last Monday, Judge Thomas Coffin issued an order recommending that the Trump administration’s attempt to delay the climate trial via a “hen’s-teeth rare” appeal “would put the cart before the horse.” On Friday, the Trump administration, represented by the Department of Justice, filed objections to Judge Coffin's recommendation, arguing this case is about law, and not facts. In an unusual request, DOJ also asks the court to make a ruling by May 19, 2017, the same day plaintiffs have to respond to the DOJ’s objections.

Julia Olson, youth plaintiffs’ counsel and executive director of Our Children’s Trust, said: “How is it possible that the Trump administration believes there is an urgency to avoiding trial, but is blind to the urgency of the catastrophic flooding in parts of Louisiana that our plaintiff Jayden continues to face, even as recent as last week, with more flooding of her home? If the government wants to talk about urgency, let’s talk about the ongoing sea level rise that will flood the barrier island our plaintiff Levi calls home. An appeal can wait until this case is tried, just like in other cases. Climate change is not waiting.”

May 1, 2017

Judge Coffin to Trump Administration: Appeal Now "Would Put Cart Before The Horse"

Further, Judge Coffin denied the Trump administration’s motion, supported by the fossil fuel industry, to put the trial on hold pending the outcome of the early appeal attempt. Youths’ attorneys argued that any delay in getting to trial would irreversibly prejudice the youth in securing and protecting their fundamental constitutional rights.

April 10, 2017

During a telephonic case management conference on Friday, April 7, between Magistrate Judge Coffin and attorneys representing the parties in Juliana v. United States, Judge Coffin itemized twelve meaningful admissions that the U.S. government defendants, then acting under the Obama administration, made in their January 13 answer to the youth plaintiffs’ complaint. Then he asked an attorney from the Department of Justice for the position of the Trump administration on climate science.

Sean Duffy, an attorney with the Department of Justice, responded that the Trump administration could still move to amend the government’s positions stated in the answer filed during the Obama administration. When asked specifically whether the Trump administration defendants will stick to the facts of climate change admitted by the prior administration, Duffy answered, “We don’t have direction from leadership so I can’t answer.”

April 4, 2017

Youth Respond to Trump Administration's Attempt to Derail Trial

Attorneys representing 21 youth in the Juliana v. United States climate lawsuit have filed opposition briefs to Trump administration and fossil fuel industry defendants’ motions that sought again to derail the case from trial. In their filings, youths’ attorneys argue that “any delay in resolving the merits of this case irreversibly prejudices the Youth Plaintiffs in securing and protecting their fundamental constitutional rights.”

Attorneys representing youth filed three responses Monday. The first response was to the U.S. government’s request that U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken allow the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the opportunity to review her November 10, 2016 order denying motions to dismiss before the trial even takes place.

Tia Hatton, 20, youth plaintiff from Eugene, OR, said: “The Trump administration and the fossil fuel interests have acknowledged our lawsuit is a threat to their profit-seeking motives. Their move to appeal Judge Aiken's historic decision to hear our case is nothing more than an extension of their personal interests and preposterous climate denial. These interests render their moronic dismissal of the merit of the constitutional rights that my co-plaintiffs and I, as well as future generations have to a stable climate system.”

March 20, 2017

Attorneys representing 21 youth plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States served request for production (RFP) of documents to the U.S. government and the American Petroleum Institute (API) asking both defendants to turn over the “Wayne Tracker” emails, as part of discovery in the climate case.

As ExxonMobil explained Tuesday, the email address pseudonym “was put in place for secure and expedited communications between select senior company officials and the former chairman for a broad range of business-related topics.” New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office stated in a March 13, 2017 court filing that Tillerson used the “Wayne.Tracker@exxonmobil.com” pseudonym “to send and receive materials regarding important matters, including those concerning to the risk-management issues related to climate change…”

While risk-management issues related to climate change are important to the New York Attorney General’s investigation, attorneys representing youth plaintiffs suspect the emails will also reveal the deep influence of the fossil fuel defendants over U.S. energy and climate policies, and the defendants’ private acknowledgement that climate change was caused by their product, both of which are important to the youth’s case. To the latter point, the fossil fuel defendants have refused to take a position on whether climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels, even when pressed by federal judges to answer that question.

March 11, 2017

On Friday, March 10, lawyers representing fossil fuel defendants in a youth climate lawsuit filed a motion with a U.S. District Court seeking an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on a November 10, 2016 order in Juliana v. United States. As reported by The Washington Post, the Trump Administration filed a similar motion requesting appeal on Tuesday.

Fossil fuel defendants support the Trump Administration’s motion. Fossil fuel defendants claim Judge Ann Aiken erred when ruling that “the political question doctrine is not a barrier to plaintiffs’ claims.” The fossil fuel defendants argue the executive and legislative branches of government, and not the judiciary, should resolve the issues presented by plaintiffs in this case.

March 8, 2017

Trump Administration Seeks Expedited Appeal to the Ninth Circuit

On Tuesday, March 7, the Trump administration filed a motion seeking an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on a federal judge’s November 10, 2016 order in Juliana v. United States. The Trump administration also filed a motion to delay trial preparation until after its appeal is considered.

Further, the Trump administration asked for expedited review of both motions, arguing the plaintiffs’ January 24, 2017 letter requesting the government to retain records relating to climate change and communications between the government and the fossil fuel industry was overly burdensome.

Alex Loznak, 20-year-old plaintiff and Columbia University student said: “This request for appeal is an attempt to cover up the federal government’s long-running collusion with the fossil fuel industry. My generation cannot wait for the truth to be revealed. These documents must be uncovered with all deliberate speed, so that our trial can force federal action on climate change."

February 28, 2017

Youth Seek Answers from the Oil Industry

Today, youth plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States released a copy of their request for documents sent to American Petroleum Institute (API), an intervenor-defendant in their constitutional climate case. The request seeks to establish a factual record of the role that the oil and gas industry played in government decisions over the past 50 years that led to climate change. API is the largest U.S. trade group for the oil and gas industry and counts ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and other major oil companies as members. The document request is a part of the discovery process in preparation for trial, currently expected to take place next fall.

As one example, plaintiffs’ request seeks information about the Global Climate Coalition, of which intervenor-defendant API and intervenor-defendant National Association of Manufacturers were active members. The Global Climate Coalition is known to have promoted climate denial and has a record of attempting to dissuade national and international efforts to combat climate change. The request for documents also asks API for communications with the George W. Bush White House regarding its climate science and policy work.

Materials sought from API are intended to fill in the gaps left by the fossil fuel industry’s answer to youth plaintiffs’ allegations filed with the court. The fossil fuel industry claimed a “lack of sufficient knowledge to admit or deny” over 75% of the factual allegations in the plaintiffs’ complaint. Yet, intervenors only had to look to the publicly available information, acknowledged by the United States government in its answer, to respond to portions of the youths’ complaint.

February 9, 2017

Kids Name President Trump As Defendant

Today, youth plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States filed a notice with a federal court in Oregon, naming Donald J. Trump as a defendant in their landmark climate case on pace for trial this fall. Plaintiffs have substituted President Trump as a named party in place of former President Barack Obama under the Federal Rules.

“I look forward to taking on the Trump administration, as I think our new president, of all people, needs to have his power checked,” said Kiran Ooommen, 20-year-old plaintiff from Eugene, OR. “President Trump benefits financially from the fossil fuel industry, but his benefit comes at a heavy cost for the rest of us. The policies of the U.S. government that ignore the threat of climate change are only going to get worse under the new presidency, based on Trump's apparent lack of understanding of climate science and his plans to invest further in the fossil fuel industry. I cannot imagine a better time than now to remind the federal government of its constitutional obligation to protect the life, liberty and property of the people, not big business.”

February 7, 2017

Update from Case Management Conference

Magistrate Judge Coffin asked that today's conference be used to “take what appears to be a complex case and see how we can simplify it to where it's more understandable and more manageable.”

Judge Coffin highlighted progress already made by plaintiffs and the federal defendants. Noting that the federal government’s answer admits many of plaintiffs’ allegations, Judge Coffin said: “To summarize, the government has admitted that, yes, climate change is a reality and that, yes, it's induced by human activity, and they admit that CO2 right now is at a level of 400 parts per million, which exceeds the level -- is the highest level in millions of years.”

Counsel for the fossil fuel defendants said his clients could not admit CO2 levels have reached 400 PPM. Judge Coffin asked that fossil fuel defendants’ counsel take to his clients for their review and response a list of the US government’s admissions.

Judge Coffin kept the parties forward-looking. Noting that under plaintiffs’ “public trust doctrine argument, it doesn't really matter what was known, who knew it, whether they deliberately ignored it and created a danger. What matters there is where are we now and where will this go if changes aren't made.” And that this case will mainly be:

“…guided by expert testimony in terms of the main issue: Is climate change happening, is it human induced, is there a tipping point, is the CO2 level currently at 400 PPM, is it necessary to reduce that to 350 PPM by a certain point in time, or is the damage to the planet going to essentially be irreversible if that's not done.”

Judge Coffin ordered the parties to “begin by engaging the experts,” even while also pursuing fact discovery. While, as Judge Coffin noted, “a lot of [federal defendants’] experts agree with [plaintiffs’] assessment,” counsel for federal defendants said the government “ha[s] to make an affirmative case,” and that defense counsel “now have the unenviable task of scouring the world's research institutions and universities to find our own experts, to build our own model as to what -- what's going on here.”

Judge Coffin proposed the trial be held in two phases. A first phase on the issue of liability:

“Is climate change happening? Are there levels beyond which it's going to be irreversible or extraordinarily harmful? Is it human induced? Is the government responsible and did the government cause any of it and are the plaintiffs' constitutional rights violated by what's happening in terms of climate change?”

If liability is found, a second, “remedy phase” of the trial will follow.

Other developments include: news that Judge Coffin will hold monthly status conferences (telephonically, unless otherwise indicated), the next one scheduled for March 8, 2017; an order for plaintiffs to begin disclosing experts in 45 days and do so on a rolling basis – with defendants expert disclosures to begin 21 days thereafter; and all parties agreed that should any plaintiff sit for a deposition, the contents of their testimony will be covered under a protective order.

November 28, 2016

Update from Case Management Conference

Today, during the case management conference with the federal court, plaintiffs, and defendants, in Juliana v. U.S., the court made clear that the case will move quickly to trial with a trial during the summer or early fall of 2017, despite defendants' concerns that discovery could take 5 years.

“We are not going to take five years to try this case. That’s not going to happen,” said Magistrate Judge Coffin.

Both sets of defendants said they would not cause delays in the case.

“We will push quickly to trial. The urgency of the climate emergency demands it,” said Julia Olson, counsel for Plaintiffs.

Judge Coffin will handle pretrial matters. Judge Ann Aiken will conduct the trial, unless the parties agree to consent to the Magistrate Judge deciding the case on the merits.

Defendants have stated they will not consent to the Magistrate Judge. Intervenor Defendants will file an answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint by December 15, 2016. Federal Defendants will file an answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint by January 13, 2017. The parties will submit proposed schedules for discovery and any pre-trial motions by January 31, 2017.

The court will hold another case management conference on February 7, 2017 to finalize those dates and set a schedule for trial in mid-2017. The court indicated that it will address injunctive relief after hearing all of the evidence at trial.

November 10, 2016

Victory for America’s Youth – Constitutional Climate Lawsuit against U.S. to Proceed

Eugene, OR – Today, the federal court in Eugene, Oregon decided in favor of 21 youth plaintiffs in their “groundbreaking” constitutional climate lawsuit against President Obama, numerous federal agencies, and the fossil fuel industry. U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken completely rejected all arguments to dismiss raised by the federal government and fossil fuel industry, determining that the young plaintiffs’ constitutional and public trust claims could proceed. Now, the 21 plaintiffs, who range in age from 9-20, are preparing for trial in what is believed to be a turning point in United States constitutional history.

September 12, 2016

League of Women Voters File Amicus Brief In Support of Youth’s Constitutional Climate Lawsuit

The League of Women Voters of the United States and the League of Women Voters of Oregon filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the constitutional climate change lawsuit brought by 21 young plaintiffs from across America.

June 9, 2016

U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken scheduled oral argument for youths’ landmark climate lawsuit for September 13, at 10 am PST in Eugene, OR. The 21 young plaintiffs received a favorable decision in their case brought against the federal government and fossil fuel industry from U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin back in April. Now, they are looking forward to their next opportunity to appear in court to fight for climate justice.

April 8, 2016

Judge Coffin Rules in Favor of Youth Denying Motions to Dismiss

U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin of the U.S. District Court in Eugene, OR, decided in favor of 21 young Plaintiffs and Dr. James Hansen on behalf of future generations, rejecting the government and fossil fuel industry's Motions to Dismiss the youth's landmark constitutional climate change case.

As part of this historic decision, Judge Coffin characterized the case as an “unprecedented lawsuit” addressing “government action and inaction” resulting “in carbon pollution of the atmosphere, climate destabilization, and ocean acidification.” In ruling that the case should proceed, Judge Coffin wrote: “The debate about climate change and its impact has been before various political bodies for some time now. Plaintiffs give this debate justiciability by asserting harms that befall or will befall them personally and to a greater extent than older segments of society. It may be that eventually the alleged harms, assuming the correctness of plaintiffs' analysis of the impacts of global climate change, will befall all of us. But the intractability of the debates before Congress and state legislatures and the alleged valuing of short term economic interest despite the cost to human life, necessitates a need for the courts to evaluate the constitutional parameters of the action or inaction taken by the government. This is especially true when such harms have an alleged disparate impact on a discrete class of society.”

March 9, 2016

Hundreds of students, activists, professors, and citizens concerned about climate turned out for a historic hearing in Eugene, Oregon to support 21 young plaintiffs, ages 8-19, in what Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein call the “most important lawsuit on the planet right now.”

The purpose of Wednesday’s hearing was to hear arguments from the parties on the federal government’s and fossil fuel industry's motions to dismiss the youth’s climate change lawsuit. The judge conducted incisive questioning of lawyers presenting oral argument for both sides on the issue.

“Defendants are wrong that our complaint fails to allege constitutional and public trust violations for the harms caused these young plaintiffs,” said Julia Olson, lead counsel for the plaintiffs and Executive Director of Our Children’s Trust, in her closing argument. “Defendants in essence ask this court to ignore the undisputed scientific evidence, presented in our complaint and in opposing this motion, that the federal government has, and continues to, damage plaintiffs’ personal security and other fundamental rights. But these young plaintiffs have the right to prove the government’s role in harming them has been knowing and deliberate.”

January 15, 2016

The Center for Earth Jurisprudence, on behalf of the Global Catholic Climate Movement (GCCM) and the Leadership Council of Women Religious (LCWR) filed an amicus curiae briefin support of the constitutional climate change lawsuit brought by 21 young plaintiffs from across America. The Catholic groups filed their brief promptly after Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin of the federal District Court in Oregon granted defendant status to three trade associations, representing nearly all of the world’s fossil fuel companies. The Catholic groups filed the brief to make their views known that the youth’s legal claims are rooted in U.S. traditions and parallel Roman Catholic tenets.

The GCCM is an international network of more than 250 Catholic organizations and individuals, including Pope Francis and Catholic bishops. The Catholic group is raising a strong voice in global climate change discussions, relying on the Pope’s recent encyclical, Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home. The LCWR represents leaders of more than 40,000 women religious across the United States and the world.

“As an organization inspired by the principles of Laudato Si’, the Global Catholic Climate Movement welcomes the opportunity to support the young plaintiffs,” said Tomas Insua, Global Coordinator with the GCCM. “Laudato Si’ reminds us that ‘Intergenerational solidarity is not optional, but rather a basic question of justice, since the world we have received also belongs to those who will follow us.’ By supporting this initiative, we join our voices with the young plaintiffs who are calling for climate justice and the protection of the atmosphere for generations to come.”

January 14, 2016

U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin of the federal District Court in Oregon granted defendant status to three trade associations, representing nearly all of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies. The three associations had moved to intervene in the constitutional climate change lawsuit brought by 21 young people from around the country. The newly named trade association defendants are the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (“AFPM”) (representing Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell, Koch Industries, and virtually all other U.S. refiners and petrochemical manufacturers), the American Petroleum Institute (“API”) (representing 625 oil and natural gas companies), and the National Association of Manufacturers (“NAM”).

January 6, 2016

Youth Plaintiffs and Dr. Hansen on behalf of Future Generations, filed a strong response in opposition to the Federal Government’s motion to dismiss the case

In their brief, they argue that the plaintiffs have standing to bring their case (they are being harmed by the Defendants’ acts and the court can redress it) and that they have brought valid claims under the U.S. Constitution and the federal Public Trust Doctrine. In a declaration submitted by John Davidson, and Oregon-based constitutional law scholar, the historical and traditional bases for Plaintiffs' claims are explained. Plaintiffs are also supported by the expert testimony of Dr. Michael MacCracken, who the Supreme Court relied upon in Massachusetts v. EPA, and of course, by plaintiff Dr. Jim Hansen. Dr. Hansen’s testimony directly links sea level rise projections to the homes and properties of the Plaintiffs, some of whom would find their family’s property underwater, if the Federal Defendants continue on their course and the climate system is not stabilized. The hearing date is currently set for February 17, 2:00 p.m. in the federal courthouse in Eugene, Oregon.

November 12, 2015

World’s Largest Petroleum Companies Call Youth’s Landmark Climate Lawsuit “a Direct Threat to [Their] Businesses” and Move to Intervene, Aligning Fossil Fuel Industry with President Obama and the U.S. Government Against Youth Plaintiffs

Youth's landmark climate lawsuit against the Federal Government just got the attention of the powerful Fossil Fuel Industry. Today, nearly every oil and gas company in the world asked for permission to oppose the landmark climate lawsuit brought against President Obama and the federal government by America’s youth and Dr. James E. Hansen -- as guardian for future generations. In an unusual step, the immense fossil fuel industry trade groups all filed pleadings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon seeking to join the lawsuit side by side with President Obama to protect their companies’ interests.

The proposed interveners constitute a veritable who’s who of major corporate polluters, including the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (representing members Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell, Koch Industries, and virtually all other U.S. refiners and petrochemical manufacturers), the American Petroleum Institute (representing 625 oil and natural gas companies), and the National Association of Manufacturers.

“Big Oil is starting to lose control of our political system.” declared Alex Loznak, a youth plaintiff in the case from Oregon. “Last week, President Obama rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline, and New York State began to investigate Exxon's cover-up of climate science. The intervention of fossil fuel companies in our lawsuit against the Federal Government makes it clear that the industry is scared. As Mahatma Gandhi once said, "first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." The fight has begun, and we will win.”

“Seeing giant fossil fuel corporations inject themselves into this case, which is about our future, really demonstrates the problem we are trying to fix,” stated Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh Martinez of Earth Guardians, a youth plaintiff in the case from Colorado. “The Federal government has been making decisions in the best interest of multinational corporations and their profits, but not in the best interest of my generation and those to come. Instead of changing their business model to meet the scientific reality of climate change, these companies are demanding we adapt to an uninhabitable world that supports their profits. When you compare the two, I think it’s clear that our right to clean air and a healthy atmosphere, is more important than their “need” to make money off destroying our future.”

August 12, 2015, International Youth Day

America’s Youth File Landmark Climate Lawsuit Against U.S. Government and President

In describing the case, one of the teenage Plaintiffs and Youth Director of Earth Guardians, Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh Martinez, stated: “The Federal Government has known for decades that CO2 pollution from burning fossil fuels was causing global warming and dangerous climate change. It also knew that continuing to burn fossil fuels would destabilize our climate system, significantly harming my generation and generations to come. Despite knowing these dangers, Defendants did nothing to prevent this harm. In fact, my Government increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to levels it knew were unsafe.”

Another Plaintiff, 18-year-old Kelsey Juliana, said: “Our nation's top climate scientists, including Dr. Hansen, have found that the present CO2 level is already in the danger zone and leading to devastating disruptions of planetary systems. The current practices and policies of our Federal Government include sustained exploitation and consumption of fossil fuels. We brought this case because the Government needs to immediately and aggressively reduce carbon emissions, and stop promoting fossil fuels, which force our nation's climate system toward irreversible impacts. If the Government continues to delay urgent annual emissions reductions, my generation's wellbeing will be inexcusably put at risk.”